The Vanguard Newsletter - Issue 3

You're RIGHT!

BACK TO THE TOPIC.

This newsletter was very informative Thanks for taking the time to put it together, KNight.

Technicality I was just the one who was able to post it once we got the go-ahead, all the Newsletters are collaborative works between all the Vanguards and final vetting by Uber.

Mike

We both know I can thank all of you personally in Teamspeak.

In all seriousness, I do appreciate how much effort you guys go through to put these things together. Taking time out of your busy schedules and all that.

feature lock and going for a 1.0 build is fine, i can live with that. It doesn't really matter if the features comes before or after the definitie release, altho i understand the speculating part of running for money so you can continue making the game, i really hope you will keep to your word.

One thing i know is going to fail tho, if you are going to sell mods for your own benefit it is already doomed to fail. You say you don't want to release expensive DLC but if mods get so good that it's considered a better part of the game then it's just the same as expensive DLC in my opinion.

The choice to monetise a mod requires 2 things; The mod to be worth something and the Mod maker to want to monetise it. Uber doesn't get to charge anything if the mod maker wants their Mod to be free.

If the game has a good set of basic core features implemented that are currently missing, such as offline play(even if skirmish only on day 1), the savegame system and such, I think it'll review well and all will be fine.

However, Uber, please don't froget, you get one shot at this. There is only one review. They won't come back and update for 1.1, or 1.2.

The whole business model depends on 1.0 selling. And you need the good reviews to sell. We can help a bit with the hype, but new players need to be convinced.

Oh and let's not forget, please implement something to make learning the basics easy. Hold newbies hands a bit, so they're not intimidated by an otherwise quite complex and brilliant game.

Actually - I believe it was IGN who are having a Review V2 type of thing happening. So when a game is released they review it and when the game undergoes a major change that is worthy of writing a new review they will, with updated scores etc.

Personally I would like a retail release sooner rather than later - if only for the fact I can play locally or with a mate when we lan. I still want all these lovely features to blow more **** up more epically but I think the game is in a good enough state just to be able to play locally. My connection isnt the greatest so anything that helps will help me in the end

Thanks Vanguards. I do kinda wish you did go into more detail on the unit cannon and such though - but all good

What kind of detail are you looking for?

Like what Catses was going for - what is Uber's idea behind it? Ie. why do they not see it as the general population does? Most people seem to think that the unit cannon will solve all of the issues regarding cracking a fortified planet - what is Uber's stance on that? Also the general "role" of the unit cannon?

If you guys can't answer I understand, however I do think it will help to calm everyone down now as this whole forum is seeing doom and gloom everywhere and it's starting to aggravate most people. (The newsletter did help a lot though - thanks)

The role of the unit cannon is the same as it has always been - plopping units on another world. Further details on it's functionality haven't been decided yet because that's not how Uber work. They build first, then tweak until good, rather than plan first, then build.

Uber looks at these things pragmatically. Many people in the community see it as the single solution to all the late game problems. Uber sees it as part of the solution, and a part which is expensive to develop. For example, what if teleporters became very easy to deploy and defend on enemy held worlds? This isn't something that they are necessarily going to do, it's just me trying to hypothetically describe that it is possible to create good invasion scenarios without the unit cannon. Another option is enhancing the planet smashing options to the point where there is as much depth in the "asteroid bombardment" portion of the game as there is in the "invasion planning" part of the game. Again, it means that people are still having fun, but they are playing the game in a different way than they might have envisaged initially.

The developers have to look at the big picture and say, "between now and release, how can we fix the most issues with the developmental resources we have". The unit cannon would be a great way to fix some issues, and the developers do acknowledge that, but it's also a very expensive way to fix those issues, requiring a lot of man-hours in order to put in to make it work. This is a difficult decision to make, one which requires experience not just of game-play design, but also of the technical landscape behind it. Hence why there are experienced developers making that decision. It's their call that they can fix more issues by de-prioritising the unit-cannon until post release, and enhancing other parts of the game instead. Things can always be re-balanced around the unit cannon later as necessary.

At the end of the day, Uber do understand that the community is very excited about the unit cannon. What they get a little tired of is that people seem to think that it is the be-all and end-all of interplanetary warfare. There have to be more options than just the unit cannon, in the same way that there have to be multiple-options to approach any problem. The Unit cannon is part of the solution to how to crack a fortified planet. I think we can even go as far as to say that it is an important part. It is not the most important part. It certainly is not the only part.

Thanks for the update, the post-release bit was quite informative.

Is it safe to assume that stretch goals (gas planets) will not be part of paid expansion packs?

Yes. It is safe to assume that.

If you concede me here is the problem. It's you, not Uber to say that.

We still do not have a clear and neat feedback directly from Uber itself about what will it be implemented to improve the Orbital aspect of the game (beside the Unit Cannon). We've hear that more is coming but what's about the bare minimum?

Again, this is your thought on the matter. But I also do not get the precise sense of it.

If there will be more options beside the Unit Cannon, why the Devs get annoyed by people wanting the bare minimum? We're just asking when Uber plans to complete the stretched goals and the basic premises of the game. We are not pushing any specific deadline for that.

Also, we did not ask for more. Even if more is very welcome, of course.

Frankly? After having read tons on the topic the feeling is still that Uber is trying to avoid the Unit Cannon altogether and it's struggling to find alternative solutions. A neat word from Uber itself with a bit of a road map would certainly dissipate the current discomfort of many backers.

Well, my 2 cents, of course.

This is the part people seem to get stuck on. It's as if, without the unit cannon being in at launch, it will RUIN the game if it is introduced later. Surely, Uber, with all that they have done already, will quite easily be able to re-balance the game to accommodate a unit such as this?

From what I have seen so far, I am confident that this is what will happen. And I agree on the other points you make, that if other parts of the game are changed to facilitate interplanetary play, then the unit cannon's absence won't be noticed by most people unit it is introduced.

To be honest, I feel that, after proper balancing of all the aspects of the game, including orbital, I don't think it will be so frustrating trying to crack planets. Until the balancing is 1.0 complete, I will reserve judgement on whether the unit cannon is 100% necessary for invading a planet.
That is not to say I will won't welcome it when it arrives, I just believe that Uber will be able to re-balance the game around it. Again, I would rather it was in at 1.0 launch, but I understand that in terms of time commitment, it is probably easier to introduce later and get the rest of the game polished. Remember, orbital and interplanetary is not balanced yet. Not to mention, we have more nuke types, and probably another orbital unit to come before 1.0.

As always, we will see

It sounds like that you won't be happy until you've got a contract on your desk signed in Jon Mavor's blood that the unit cannon will be in and fully functional by 2pm on the 7th of April 2014, with legally binding penalty clauses if it isn't.

I cannot furnish you with such a contract. All I can do is ask Jon questions on your behalf and then report as truthfully and objectively as possible. Something I take pride in, as objectivity and logic are the cornerstones of my profession.

I'm saddened by all this paranoia. People have been given all the facts there are, and then we still get called spin-doctors. As though accusing the messenger will somehow magically make the message what they want to hear.

I think I need to take a break for a while before I return.

That's good to hear, although It's still only one site, and it might be years before it happens. I still hold my opinion that it's essential for on-release reviews to be good.

Actually, thats not what hes saying, perhaps you need to re-read what he wrote. Think we all need a little clarification on what 1.0 release is going to entail.
If you need some time off, then maybe you should let someone else be a Vanguard.

The following point still stands: The game does not lack the unit cannon but that which it represents, i.e. a definitive invasion tool. The teleporter does not qualify because it is a transportation tool that has to be preceded by an invasion. Since the unit cannon is the only planned unit that fills said role by design it is this highly anticipated.
No conspiracy terrorism involved at all.

I surely didn't say that.

Thanks for your efforts in this. I understand it's tough being in your position. Hopefully you will re-read what I've said, and if no answer can be given, then just say that.

An official and sincere "can't answer that" is light years better than pretending that all doubts have been addressed.